WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply... - 1/10/2012 11:40:05 AM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?
I doubt if I get such results if I set the bombardment manually.
Moreover, we all know that it can be used to game the engine (seen many AAR examples).

The turn attached. Talking about Wake. Wake is fort 5 atoll. The strength is more or less equal (at least as far as the AV is concerned). Enemy landed there a month ago but Wake did not fall. And now he is just feeding the lone regiment left there actually killing me with... what? Canned beef?

In view of the deliberate attacks that has been made before and received 1:5/1:10 against the Allies
I just feel the results of such autobombardments are not right.

Whole units are simply anihilated because enemy unloading some convenience food and/or ammo.
There used to be a time when the (normal) bombardments were thought too powerful and has been toned down a (too) bit.

But does this toning down appy to autobombardment rule?
It's just as if I were using catapults to throw my soldiers instead od bullets...

Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1415 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 82
Defending force 2647 troops, 59 guns, 57 vehicles, Assault Value = 91

Japanese ground losses:
1090 casualties reported
Squads: 86 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 14 (14 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Assaulting units:
85th Naval Guard Unit
2nd Base Force

Defending units:
21st Infantry Regiment

The examples are repeatable. I've got one from the invasion time couple of weeks ago and it's quite similar.
Again, repeating, this is all in view of an Allied deliberate attacks that bring rather nasty results for the attacker.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 1/10/2012 11:53:22 AM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

Post #: 1

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/10/2012 1:52:39 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

And here's the file "before".
Units well supplied. INF naval guard unit that evaporated this turn in right op mode. Prepped 30%. Morale 99/EXP 60.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 2

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/10/2012 5:29:39 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Yes, this is funky. I am only resupplying a lone depleted infantry regiment with three LSTs. Basically, I am going to take him out just by dropping off supply. Normally, I would be very happy about this but Ark is a good guy and deserves a break now and then..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 3

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/10/2012 11:40:35 PM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Ground combat is not related to ships unloading.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 4

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/11/2012 12:07:44 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Ground combat is not related to ships unloading.

michael don't the defenders in an invasion hex automtically engage in a bombardment attack in the combat phase against enemy units unloading in the hex from ships?

I believe this is what they are referring to.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 5

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/11/2012 12:12:24 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Ah!. I'll look at that. Didn't think that supply unload did that as I stopped amphib bombardment against the supply runs from a TF in the original release.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 6

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/11/2012 6:48:22 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Thanks Michael, but you still want any active eligible guns shooting at the transport as they are unloading. It is the bombardment that is questionable.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 1/11/2012 6:49:25 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 7

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 7:31:53 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Thanks Michael, but you still want any active eligible guns shooting at the transport as they are unloading. It is the bombardment that is questionable.

yeah, but if you only unload supply CD units!!! are not firing at ships. The supply unload does trigger the auto bombardment (ground combat) of defending units against invading units and it has always been so since I've been playing AE. And I always wondered why CD guns would fire on an invasion but when they are still in place, they do nothing against freighters parking off the coast unloading supplies.

You see a combat replay pop up for halve a second but never ever something happens when there is only supply left to be unloaded, no matter if there is one freighter or one hundred freighters that are unloading supplies, at least not in my version of the game, which is now running the latest official beta patch.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/12/2012 7:32:28 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 8

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 9:54:35 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

The change discussed was to do with the forcing of ground units to bombard during the land combat phase.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 9

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 1:07:46 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
The supply unload does trigger the auto bombardment (ground combat) of defending units against invading units and it has always been so since I've been playing AE.

True CT. It has always been like that -- I stated it clearly in my first post.
But just because "it has always been like that" it doesn't mean that it isn't dumb, right?

I think it's simply stupid -- expecially if it brings such a strange result (here: destroying defending and autobombarding Japanese units) and the next day's Allied deliberate attack at Wake brings completely different results.
Compare: 86 my squads destroyed after that stupid autobombardment of enemy supply convoy with only 5 disabled during enemy deliberate attack. (Even if this turn I am exhausted, disrupted and out of supply because of the previous "nuclear autobombardment"

).
I repeat: this way the island can be taken just by dropping canned beef on my beach.

Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2706 troops, 61 guns, 58 vehicles, Assault Value = 95
Defending force 3541 troops, 42 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 33

Allied adjusted assault: 32

Japanese adjusted defense: 35

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 4)

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
134 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
21st Infantry Regiment

Defending units:
2nd Base Force
85th Naval Guard Unit

BTW: it seems that only INF units autobombard on enemy's supply unload.
My naval guard had been zeroed in AV, but the base force holds on.

< Message edited by viberpol -- 1/12/2012 6:52:51 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 10

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 3:00:33 PM

ckammp

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?
I doubt if I get such results if I set the bombardment manually.
Moreover, we all know that it can be used to game the engine (seen many AAR examples).

The turn attached. Talking about Wake. Wake is fort 5 atoll. The strength is more or less equal (at least as far as the AV is concerned). Enemy landed there a month ago but Wake did not fall. And now he is just feeding the lone regiment left there actually killing me with... what? Canned beef?

In view of the deliberate attacks that has been made before and received 1:5/1:10 against the Allies
I just feel the results of such autobombardments are not right.

Whole units are simply anihilated because enemy unloading some convenience food and/or ammo.
There used to be a time when the (normal) bombardments were thought too powerful and has been toned down a (too) bit. But does this toning down appy to autobombardment rule?
It's just as if I were using catapults to throw my soldiers instead od bullets...

Ground combat at Wake Island (136,98)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1415 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 82
Defending force 2647 troops, 59 guns, 57 vehicles, Assault Value = 91

Japanese ground losses:
1090 casualties reported
Squads: 86 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 14 (14 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Assaulting units:
85th Naval Guard Unit
2nd Base Force

Defending units:
21st Infantry Regiment

The examples are repeatable. I've got one from the invasion time couple of weeks ago and it's quite similar.
Again, repeating, this is all in view of an Allied deliberate attacks that bring rather nasty results for the attacker.

It appears the Japanese player has a few options in this situation:

A) Use naval and/or air assets to interdict and prevent the Allied player from landing supply
B) Land reinforcements of his own to destroy the enemy units
C) Combination of A and B

Or

D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results

It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 11

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 3:09:35 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The change discussed was to do with the forcing of ground units to bombard during the land combat phase.

yes I know. But still, why does supply unloading trigger an auto bombardment of the LCU but the ships are not targetted by the CD guns? I guess it does not make much sense. All ships would be targetted by CD guns if one soldier is unloaded together with hundreds of tons of supply.

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 12

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 4:19:15 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?

D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results

It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

I am not complaining. I'm just asking.
Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense.
Do you see the difference?

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 13

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 4:43:58 PM

ckammp

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?

D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results

It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

I am not complaining. I'm just asking.
Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense.
Do you see the difference?

Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune.
The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed.

As to the issue itself, what is the problem?
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?
Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 14

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 5:59:29 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

Come on... I didn�t edit or change a thing in my post. It starts exactly from what it starts: an enquiry what�s the logic behind autobombardment.

Sorry, I�m not responsible for your impression of my tune...

But let me ask you -- maybe just try understand the case, then comment, ok?

It�s not that the unloading ships are being shot at during unloading
but the forced autobombardment during land combat phase after the unload of supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?

Well... yes. IMHO it could be nice if the code was changed. But I do only suggest something. Michael has his own wetware and can decide if the change is justified or not...

And: yes. I�d expect my forces to fulfil my orders and do not be forced to bombard the enemy units only because there were ships unloading some ice-cream and fuel this morning.

It�s enough if my troops fire at unloading ships. I�d like control. Why would they bombard the enemy LCUs during land combat phase & against my orders?

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 15

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 6:27:06 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Viberpol, those results are totally unreasonable. Basicly your own (auto)bombardment wiped out almost entire garrison. 85th Naval Guard Unit and 2nd Base Force have 90 infantry and HMG squads, and you lost over 80... That's not right, not right at all.

I believe there must be a bug, those results are more like shock attack than bombardment.

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 16

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 7:56:00 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?

D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results

It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

I am not complaining. I'm just asking.
Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense.
Do you see the difference?

Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune.
The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed.

As to the issue itself, what is the problem?
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?
Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle.

I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem.

Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 17

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 8:12:53 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Thanks Michael, but you still want any active eligible guns shooting at the transport as they are unloading. It is the bombardment that is questionable.

Actually, this is working fine as his guns chewed up my un-escorted LSTs while they unloaded.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 18

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 9:03:26 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I'm not certain it is as outrageous as it seems.

Those japanese troops are exposed on the beach of a tiny atoll. How large can the beach lodgement be?

59 guns shelling a concentration of 1400 men packed into a tiny beachhead with absolutely no cover should result in high casualties.

What I find most interesting though is that the japanese lost 14 guns when they only had 12???

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 19

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 9:15:42 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I'm not certain it is as outrageous as it seems.
Those japanese troops are exposed on the beach of a tiny atoll. How large can the beach lodgement be?
59 guns shelling a concentration of 1400 men packed into a tiny beachhead with absolutely no cover should result in high casualties.
What I find most interesting though is that the japanese lost 14 guns when they only had 12???

It's the other way around -- Allies are/should be exposed. I've got defending forces dig in with forts level 5.
As far as the guns are concerned. I noticed that too. But it seems that, as I pointed out, it's just the INF unit that autobombarded, but both units received the response (id est. those guns lost are both from naval guard and base force).

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 20

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/12/2012 9:17:44 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

oh, sorry I misunderstood.

yes, it seems out of whack for that level of losses from shelling level 5 forts

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 21

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/13/2012 6:17:03 AM

ckammp

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?

D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results

It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

I am not complaining. I'm just asking.
Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense.
Do you see the difference?

Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune.
The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed.

As to the issue itself, what is the problem?
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?
Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle.

I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem.

Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind.

Sir,

I would like to apologize to you and your opponent for any offence I may have caused. My initial reading of the OP's post lead me to the wrong conclusion about his motives for posting. Having read the post again, more thoroughly, I can see he has a legitimate question about the bombardment results in this situation. Hopefully, michaelm can take a look at this, and find a solution.
Again, sorry for any offence.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 22

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/13/2012 9:15:38 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

For now, I have modified the 'auto-bombard' function due to unloading so that it wont 'destroy' itself by using up its supply.
If the unit has less supply than needed, it WONT try to bombard.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 23

RE: WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after su... - 1/14/2012 4:34:15 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

This is a "feature" that's been with us for long but I still wonder:
Is there a way to get rid of autobombardment if the enemy unloading supplies only? Is there a logic hidden here I just can't see?

D) Run to the forum and complain loudly that the game code needs to be changed because he doesn't agree with combat results

It's not the game code that needs to be changed, it's your tactics.

I am not complaining. I'm just asking.
Because IMHO it just doesn't make sense.
Do you see the difference?

Way to use selective editing of your own posts to try to change your tune.
The rest of your post is nothing but a complaint, in order to try to get the game code changed.

As to the issue itself, what is the problem?
The enemy invaded your island, is now landing supply for his invasion force, and your garrison responds by bombardment attack. What would you do, sit back and allow the enemy to unload supply unimpeded?
Again, the problem is not the game code, but your response (or rather lack there of) to the tactical situation.

No, you are missing the point. I am Viperpol's opponent and it is the results-not the mechanics that are in question. The unloading of supply from three LSTs caused his dug in defenders to auto bombard a depleted American infantry regiment and they suffered outrageous losses as a result. That is what needs correcting. I have no real problem with the auto bombardment taking place as long as the results are within the scope of reason. But we are talking about two weak Japanese units vs a weak Allied unit with very few actual guns in play. Should have been a few men out of action on each side, and would have no effect on the eventual battle.

I would say that this is a bug rather than a game code problem.

Sorry mate, but you response to Ark is totally off base and rude to boot. His raising the issue is legitimate in my mind.

Sir,

I would like to apologize to you and your opponent for any offence I may have caused. My initial reading of the OP's post lead me to the wrong conclusion about his motives for posting. Having read the post again, more thoroughly, I can see he has a legitimate question about the bombardment results in this situation. Hopefully, michaelm can take a look at this, and find a solution.
Again, sorry for any offence.

Thanks, no worries. I have stepped on enough toes here myself.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 24

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> WT* is wrong with the autobombardment rule after supply unload?/again

Page: [1]